IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Once prosecution has established that gratification in any form had been paid or accepted by a public servant, it can be presumed that gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 22/9/2007 in CC No.22/2002 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode (for short, ‘the court below’).

2. The accused faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’).

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the accused, while working as the Village Officer, Kanhirangad, demanded bribe of ‘3,000/ from the defacto complainant/decoy on 30/11/2000 for conducting verification on the application filed by him at the Land Tribunal, Mananthavady for getting purchase certificate and accepted ‘1,000/- on 5/12/2000, at 1.25 p.m. at his office by abusing his official position as a public servant.

4. After trial, the court below found the accused not guilty and acquitted him vide impugned judgment. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the State preferred this appeal.

5. I have heard Sri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB and Sri.Devaprasanth P.J., the learned counsel for the accused/respondent.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB Sri. A. Rajesh submitted that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of PWs1 to 9 and hence, the court below ought to have convicted him. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the court below while appreciating the prosecution evidence, completely ignored the presumption required to be taken under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the PC Act. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the court below ignored the material piece of evidence adduced by the prosecution and failed to appreciate it in the correct perspective resulting in a failure of justice enabling this court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the following decisions in support of his argument: (i) Parameswaran Pillai R. (Dr.) v. State of Kerala (2011 (4) KHC 411), (ii) Shaji E. V. v. State of Kerala (2012 KHC 720), (iii) Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra (2015 KHC 1596), (iv) Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020 KHC 6606), (v) Jeet Ram v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh (AIR 2020 SC 4313), and (vi) Achhar Singh and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021 KHC 6272).

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused Sri.Devaprasanth P.J. submitted that in the case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused, and a judgment of acquittal can be interfered with only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances which are lacking in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was a demand for illegal gratification from the side of the accused and its acceptance by him. The learned counsel also submitted that PW1 illegally trapped the accused at the instance of PW6. The learned counsel added that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act had not been properly proved by the prosecution.

8. It is not in dispute that the accused was working as Village Officer, Kanhirangad, during the relevant period. Ext.P8 posting order of the accused and Ext.P10 attendance register would also prove the said fact. It has come out in evidence that the decoy witness (PW1) submitted an application at the Land Tribunal, Mananthavady, to obtain purchase certificate in respect of 5 cents of property belonging to him on 14/1/2000. Ext.P2 is the said application. Similarly, he has submitted another application in the name of his father at the same Land Tribunal to obtain purchase certificate in respect of 4 Acres 95 cents of property. Ext.P1 is the said application. It has also come out in evidence that both Exts.P1 and P2 applications were forwarded by the Land Tribunal to the accused, who was the Village Officer, Kanhir